Will this work?

[TrinaDelight]

I have a few "friends" that told me to make sure I give a short time and companionship session (verbally) (5-10 minutes), (verbally) end the time and companionship session. then go forward to adult time because "I" want to go in the other room. What do you think?

[ShysterJon]

Are you asking if a provider spends a few minutes talking to a hobbyist, that means she won't get busted for prostitution? Uh, no. That's silly.

[KierstanStarr]

I debated that too, but I don't think that works either. We're all kinda just screwed because the feds think they should be allowed to put laws on immorality used for making money. Odd.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by KierstanStarr

We're all kinda just screwed because the feds think they should be allowed to put laws on immorality used for making money.

That's not really an accurate statement. While there are federal laws related to prostitution, they apply more to large-scale prostitution enterprises than individual providers. Federal laws related to prostitution concern, for example, human trafficking and criminal conspiracies. But for maybe 99.99% of prostitution busts, state and city laws apply, not federal.

[KierstanStarr]

Either way, the courts, government, whatever the hell you want to call it, feels they have the right to tell me that being immoral is illegal, but it's only illegal if I ask for money. If I'm just having sex with a married man for free, then my immorality is legal. It makes a ton of sense

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by KierstanStarr

Either way, the courts, government, whatever the hell you want to call it, feels they have the right to tell me that being immoral is illegal, but it's only illegal if I ask for money. If I'm just having sex with a married man for free, then my immorality is legal. It makes a ton of sense

I think you're preaching to the choir here, you little blonde cutie.

[TrinaDelight]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Are you asking if a provider spends a few minutes talking to a hobbyist, that means she won't get busted for prostitution? Uh, no. That's silly.

Not necessarily chatting. but distinguishing one paid session from another verbally. Time and companionship over. Then fun time is free.

[Guest062114-5]

Originally Posted by TrinaDelight

Not necessarily chatting. but distinguishing one paid session from another verbally. Time and companionship over. Then fun time is free.

Even restated it's still a bit silly. If you're just charging for companionship, maybe you could just invoice him for that time later. That might work. ;-)

[Guest062114-5]

KStarr,

Since you're interested in criminal law, you should definitely read all of ShysterJon's posts here. Lots of great and interesting information and he's in Texas, too.

xoxo,
LMx

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by TrinaDelight

Not necessarily chatting. but distinguishing one paid session from another verbally. Time and companionship over. Then fun time is free.

I would try arguing that before a jury, but I may be chewing gum while I talk and I wouldn't want to blind juror number seven in his right eye with gum propelled at the speed of light from my hysterical, maniacal laughing.

[19Trees]

Trina,

Your question and the instincts behind it, are good ones.

Most or all State laws define prostitution as quid pro quo, this (money) for that (sexual services defined in the code).

Only the very tiniest percentage of prostitution arrests go to trial and fewer still are resolved with an written opinion by the court. Not sure if there is even one reported case where an accused is on trial for prostitution.

If there were (or will be) such a case, the "TIME ONLY" argument (sex was two mutually consenting adults not for money) may be a winning legal argument. Or not.

A meeting of State Prosecutors occasioned by Craigslist's "voluntary" agreement to remove adult ads on CL a prosecutor from PA made argument that plea deals are highly favored/recommended since States prosecutors actually fear that they will lose in a well presented "TIME ONLY" defense by the provider.

Trees disagrees with Shyster's proposition that the question is laughable. To the contrary, evidence that there was a paid session of companionship no sex, followed by legal private conduct would HELP the provider avoid arrest.

Someone somewhere someday will TEST this. Will purposely and purposefully try to get themselves arrested to make a point and take this defensive strategy (which Shyster Jon thinks silly and laughable for reasons unstated?) to trial.

Madame: Did you receive payment for sex? NO
Sir: Did you pay for sex? NO
Madame: You expect jury to believe that you charge for time only? YES
Sir: You expect jury to believe you were not paying for sex? YES

Will someone laugh? Maybe. Will a highly skilled trial attorney who attempts not only to get you off but also to establish "time only" as future defense? S/he too will not be laughing. May actually be a winning argument. If not, then the million "time only" disclaimers in adult ads are also worthless and laughable.

19Trees

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by 19Trees

Most or all State laws define prostitution as quid pro quo, this (money) for that (sexual services defined in the code).

Well, I don't know about the laws of "most or all states" since I haven't spent the time reading the penal codes of all 50 states as you infer you have, Trees. But from what you assert I think you are just bullshitting. I do know the laws regarding prostitution in Texas, since I have practiced criminal law here for more than 28 years, and I've handled hundreds of prostitution cases. The Texas law can't be accurately characterized as a "quid pro quo" law; rather, the law regards offer OR acceptance ONLY -- no agreement need be formed.

Originally Posted by 19Trees

Only the very tiniest percentage of prostitution arrests go to trial and fewer still are resolved with an written opinion by the court. Not sure if there is even one reported case where an accused is on trial for prostitution.

If there were (or will be) such a case, the "TIME ONLY" argument (sex was two mutually consenting adults not for money) may be a winning legal argument. Or not.

Well, while you were reading up on the prostitution laws of all 50 states, how many appellate opinions did you come across in which a conviction was reversed based on the "money for time only" defense? Please give me the cites. If you say you didn't find one, I think we can conclude that no such opinion exists. btw, you seem to have a misunderstanding about the cases reported in casebooks. They're APPELLATE OPINIONS, not opinions issued by trial courts.

Originally Posted by 19Trees

A meeting of State Prosecutors occasioned by Craigslist's "voluntary" agreement to remove adult ads on CL a prosecutor from PA made argument that plea deals are highly favored/recommended since States prosecutors actually fear that they will lose in a well presented "TIME ONLY" defense by the provider.

I completely call bullshit on this. Give the cite.

Originally Posted by 19Trees

Trees disagrees with Shyster's proposition that the question is laughable. To the contrary, evidence that there was a paid session of companionship no sex, followed by legal private conduct would HELP the provider avoid arrest.

Someone somewhere someday will TEST this. Will purposely and purposefully try to get themselves arrested to make a point and take this defensive strategy (which Shyster Jon thinks silly and laughable for reasons unstated?) to trial.

Reasons unstated? HUH? Have you read any of my postings here and on ASPD for the past 15 years? Many times I've explained that jurors don't leave their common sense at the jury room door when they begin deliberations on a case. Juries tend to figure things out pretty quick. Here, you're talking about a FALSE, FABRICATED DEFENSE that belies common sense. A real-world courtroom isn't like one of the TV courtrooms where you received all your legal knowledge. I won't assert any nonsensical defense because the jury might thump my client because they were annoyed by my lack of respect for their intelligence. I also think you must be from Pluto in thinking that some idiot would purposefully allow themselves to be arrested just to test the "money for time only" defense unless, of course, YOU are the idiot. In that case, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

[jwin]

Originally Posted by 19Trees

Trina,

Your question and the instincts behind it, are good ones.

Most or all State laws define prostitution as quid pro quo, this (money) for that (sexual services defined in the code).

Only the very tiniest percentage of prostitution arrests go to trial and fewer still are resolved with an written opinion by the court. Not sure if there is even one reported case where an accused is on trial for prostitution.

If there were (or will be) such a case, the "TIME ONLY" argument (sex was two mutually consenting adults not for money) may be a winning legal argument. Or not.

A meeting of State Prosecutors occasioned by Craigslist's "voluntary" agreement to remove adult ads on CL a prosecutor from PA made argument that plea deals are highly favored/recommended since States prosecutors actually fear that they will lose in a well presented "TIME ONLY" defense by the provider.

Trees disagrees with Shyster's proposition that the question is laughable. To the contrary, evidence that there was a paid session of companionship no sex, followed by legal private conduct would HELP the provider avoid arrest.

Someone somewhere someday will TEST this. Will purposely and purposefully try to get themselves arrested to make a point and take this defensive strategy (which Shyster Jon thinks silly and laughable for reasons unstated?) to trial.

Madame: Did you receive payment for sex? NO
Sir: Did you pay for sex? NO
Madame: You expect jury to believe that you charge for time only? YES
Sir: You expect jury to believe you were not paying for sex? YES

Will someone laugh? Maybe. Will a highly skilled trial attorney who attempts not only to get you off but also to establish "time only" as future defense? S/he too will not be laughing. May actually be a winning argument. If not, then the million "time only" disclaimers in adult ads are also worthless and laughable.

19Trees

He isn't an attorney, just plays one on eccie. But if you know the saying, I bet he represents himself in court!

[Guest062114-5]

These threads make me pull my hair out. You know the best way to not get arrested for prostitution? Don't charge money for sex.

It's illegal right now, like it or not. But it is. If a client came to me an asked me how to avoid arrest when robbing a bank, I'd tell him not to rob a bank.

So the best way to avoid arrest is to not commit a crime. The next best thing to do is not exchange money until after the act.

Getting back to the original question, Trina...after considering it...you might well seriously lower your chances if arrest if you sit and chat with a fellow for an hour, charge him for that time. Then screw him for another hour for free. I say this because most cops are going to go for the sure thing and not sit around for an hour waiting to see what happens.

[sketchball82]

Originally Posted by LilMynx69

Even restated it's still a bit silly. If you're just charging for companionship, maybe you could just invoice him for that time later. That might work. ;-)

I'm in patent law, not criminal law, but I would think we can all agree creating a paper trail for such activities is not a good idea.

Even if you explicitly list some other activity as the purpose of the invoice (i.e., a red herring), good luck selling a detective, prosecutor, or jury on that.